FIRST COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC), OJ L 040 , 11/02/1989 P. 0001 – 0007.
3. Two generic or common descriptive terms may be combined to form a trademark, provided that secondary meaning is established. ...
2000-07-18 - Case Details
D2001-0002 (refusing to transfer ); Teollisuuden
Voima OY v. Jonno P. Vastamäki, WIPO Case
No. D2001-0321; Stadt Heidelberg v. Media Factory, WIPO
Case No. D2001-1500, [denying transfer of , because
Complainant failed to show trademark rights in city name Heidelberg; and Land
Sachsen-Anhalt v. ...
2004-08-23 - Case Details
Nor does the fact that Respondent has refused Complainant’s
offers to purchase for any amount less than its fair
market value “show that its purpose in using the mark is primarily focused
on obtaining consideration in excess of its out-of-pocket costs” (Complaint,
at p. 19). Numerous panels have recognized that such a stance is equally indicative
of a legitimate right to the disputed domain name.
6. ...
2004-12-09 - Case Details
Metzger stated that he was in the process of trying to sell his travel agency business and could not make a final decision regarding the Domain Name until he had finalized negotiations (see Complaint Ex. P);
(h) on May 17, 2004, Complainant sent a demand letter to Inoxis Africa Ltd. (see Complaint Ex. ...
2004-09-29 - Case Details
This same reasoning applies in the present case. See also Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v.Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (intentionally trading on the fame of a mark cannot constitute bona fide use). ...
2009-04-30 - Case Details
To conclude otherwise would mean that a the Respondent could rely
on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest (Madonna
Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", WIPO
Case No. D2000-0847 and Lava Trademark Holding Company, LLC v. ...
2005-12-13 - Case Details
Intellectual Property:
Patents, Copyright, Trademarks and Allied Rights. Fourth Edition, Sweet and
Maxwell, 1999, p. 619-651.”
The Panel finds that the domain name is identical to the mark AIR DECCAN in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2005-11-30 - Case Details
In addition, in accordance with prior decisions, this
Panel considers that use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot
constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services (Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a
Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0847).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
...
2006-04-05 - Case Details
Hence, Complainant’s argument that the Respondent demonstrates an intent to divert consumers from buying Viagra does not correspond to what can reasonably be determined by inspection of the Respondent’s website.” Respondent Response p.11.
The Panel rejects Respondent’s argument at page 11 of the Response. It is difficult to look at his home page without getting the impression that he is principally offering Viagra for sale, with the “stories” being ancillary to the business. ...
2006-03-31 - Case Details
The Respondent’s attempts to profit and monetize the disputed domain name by using the disputed domain name to mislead and divert users seeking to find the Complainant’s website is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial use of the disputed domain name. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and Madonna.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“[U]se which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.”)
...
2008-05-22 - Case Details
Estas marcas incorporan “Asturias” junto a otros vocablos: ”Infoasturias”, “Asturias en la red”, “Asturiasemprende”, “Asturias exterior”, “Asturias ahora”, “Asturias exporta”, “Asturias paraíso digital”, “Asturias, Espacio educativo”, “Saboreando Asturias”, “Recrea Asturias”, “Asturias Tesoro cultural”, “Asturias Tesoro cultural”, “Asturias Paraíso natural”, “Consejo Consultivo del Principado de Asturias”, “SC Sindicatura de Cuentas del Principado de Asturias”, “Procuradora General del Principado de Asturias”, “Sociedad Regional De Promoción del Principado deAsturias”, “TPA Televisión del Principado de Asturias”, “R P A Radio del Principado de Asturias”, “RTPA Radiotelevisión del Principado de Asturias”, “SRT Sociedad Regional de Turismo Principado de Asturias”, “Sociedad de Promoción ExteriorPrincipado de Asturias”, “Instituto de Fomento del Principado de Asturias”, “Orquesta del Principado de Asturias”, “Orquesta de Cuerda del Principado de Asturias”, “Orquesta de Camara del Principado de Asturias”, “SPA Orquesta Sinfónica del Principado de Asturias”, “OSPA Orquesta Sinfónica del Principado de Asturias”, “Servicio de Publicaciones Principado de Asturias”, “Servicio de Salud del Principado de Asturias”, “Servicio de Salud. ...
2008-07-15 - Case Details
CanAm Health Source, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0298 and Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna/com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. Complainant contends that the application will not be published in all likelihood and it is in fact published, Complainant will immediately file opposition against the registration of the said trade mark...
2007-12-13 - Case Details
Respondents knowing adoption and use of the of the confusingly similar domain name in dispute and other indicia from Complainant’s website is not a bona fide use of the domain name. In Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.Com”;
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, the panel observed that, “use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a “bona fide” offering of goods or services. ...
2007-09-24 - Case Details
In a more recent decision, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court held that content of a website operated under a domain name must be taken into account when examining the likelihood of confusion (see sic! 2005, p. 283 ). It follows that, in an assessment of the risks of confusion under the Swiss Trademark Act, both the degree of similarity of the signs as well as the similarity of the respective goods and/or services are be taken into account. ...
2007-11-13 - Case Details
Ver José Ovalle Favela, “Teoría General del Proceso”, Editorial Harla, México, 1991, p. 263....
2007-08-24 - Case Details
El Demandado argumenta que el espacio correspondiente al gTLD .cat es un dominio de dominio dirigido expresamente a la comunidad lingüística y cultural catalana en Internet, y que por lo tanto el Demandante “no cumple los requisitos de admisión para optar a dicho nombre de dominio”.
El Demandado también argumenta que “[p] ara obtener un dominio .cat hay que demostrar alguna relación con esta comunidad lingüística y cultural catalana. ...
2007-08-20 - Case Details
The Respondent claims that the use of the disputed domain name is for legitimate reasons, namely as a “political protest site against what I feel is the ruination of American politics” (Annex 18) and was used as such prior to “any notice [to the Respondent] of the dispute” (Response, p. 6).
However, the Complainants submitted evidence demonstrating that the website associated with the disputed domain name was “parked” by the host “GoDaddy” and provided several sponsored links to commercial websites of competitors of the Complainants in the field of transport and shipping services (Annexes 14 and 15). ...
2010-03-10 - Case Details
Indeed, it has been held
in a number of previous WIPO UDRP cases, including Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a
Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com,” WIPO
Case No. D2000-0847, that “use which intentionally trades on the fame
of another can not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.”
...
2007-01-29 - Case Details
It makes no difference in this respect that the Respondent’s business is small and limited to West Bengal. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
...
2007-06-25 - Case Details
There is thus no issue regarding due notice or the Panel's jurisdiction over this proceeding.
2 The error by Register.com and subsequent communication between the Center and Register.com discussed in the following section delayed the proceeding somewhat.
3 Complainant provides a page from the wayback machine, “www.archive.org”, displaying this content.
4 Paragraph 4(c)(iii) provides as an example of how to demonstrate a right or legitimate interest: "(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue."
5 As noted at p. 6 infra, the test for similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) differs from whether the subsidiary word obviates confusion sufficiently to place an expressive domain name within the protection of the First Amendment.
6 Not all decisions in the United States agree on the First Amendment basis upon which the Howard Jarvis line of cases rests, however. ...
2007-05-15 - Case Details